It looks like the traditional triple-monopoly is facing a barrage of upstarts on all sides - PC gaming, handhelds, and even their unbreached 'home-turf' of living-room consoles (while already dealing with the rise of mobile gaming).

What do you think, if anything, is going to happen to console gaming in the coming year?

Haven't really been following the news surrounding the next-gen hardware, but this nVidia Shield seems more akin to the PS Vita than to traditional consoles. Maybe the handheld market is where the Big Three's position is weaker than it's ever been and a chance to have success is greater in that area. It's an interesting move by nVidia, but, I dunno, a bit too much like this, no?

Anyway, I'm not sure the 'Big Three' are being challenged with these upcoming projects, I think the gap is too big at the moment, but I do feel there's room for more than those three in the console gaming market and the Steambox, especially, seems to make a move to get a place between those consoles and has a chance for success (though I'm not sure what to expect from it). Then there's also Game Stick... I guess the more the merrier, hopefully some of these actually turn out decent.

As tempting as it is to think that the big three might end up being usurpsed by upsets, I don't think it's likely to happen. The Ouya, Shield and even the Steambox are really niche consoles with limitations. When the average joe (and sadly, average joes make the greater portion of console buyers, outnumbering hardcore gamers) wants to buy something to play games on, he's going to buy one of the big three: powerful graphics, big-name titles, stick-in-and-play capabilities.

Not sure those examples really are an "answer" to anything, but if they manage to offer games at lower prices and allow used games on their consoles, they could be the better option for some. If they're any good, of course. Sony and Microsoft have the advantage of their exclusive games, but maybe people not into the exclusives may be more inclined to choose something that plays an Assassin's Creed as well as a Sony or Microsoft console would (which is the impression I got from that Shield trailer - regardless of how awkward it looks).

Haven't been interested in owning a console since Sega Mega Drive 2, nor have I been interested in playing on a console since Playstation 2. Still, I do salute the slow but steady rise of games developed for the PC first and then ported to consoles - I believe this kind of development process (if done properly) can ensure the best quality for every platform and in turn the most profit for the game devs. As for the Ouya, Steambox and others, I'm not really sure what to think. As for a potential Xbox 720, I honestly doubt it will happen (especially any time soon) - Microsoft seems to be heading towards tablets and smartphones in terms of its software and as for a Sony PS4, who knows?

The problem is that the scenario of Sony and Microsoft using measures to stop second hand games from running on their systems is purely hypothetical. Sony may have researched this but then there are a tonne of patents by Nintendo that have them looking into crazy research such as using holographic media discs that can store terabytes of data... which I don't see anywhere on Wii U...

And the rumour you're talking about simply stems from that bit of research Sony was conducting. There's not even once shred of mention of Microsoft at all.

The problem is that neither Ouya or Shield have any sort of foothold on the console market, cheaper prices or not. Like I said, this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. The big reason why Sony was able to get in was because of their hardware relationship with Nintendo and then the huge developer backlash against Nintendo. The only reason Microsoft is in is because they bought their way into the console market with a vengeance... because they're Microsoft.

Hence why at this stage, I'm thinking that Steambox has the only chance out of the three since they already have a sure foothold on the gaming industry to begin with. We'll know more once Valve reveals more to us... but I think their move into the console market probably has more to do with their own blacklash against Microsoft and Windows 8 more than them trying to conquer the console market.

That said, in the hypothetical scenario that both Sony and Microsoft cut their own heads off and use methods to stop second hand games, then still, out of all the three, Steambox is the only one that really has a chance.

The rumor about Microsoft having a used games prevention in their next Xbox is about a year old (It's Kotaku, so I don't know ), it'd be naive to think Microsoft hasn't thought of it anyway. It's all rumors at this point, of course, but we do already live in an age of online passes, it's not that big a stretch.

As a hardcore gamer, why would I want to invest in Ouya, Shield and Steambox when I have the big three consoles and a gaming PC?

Apologies, I meant niche gamer. As in gamers who are in the know about the industry, know what indie games are, what ports are, and so on. These would invariably be a subset of the hardcore gamers, or to use the more PC term lately, 'core' gamer - not necessarily the ones clocking 12 hours a day into CS or CoD, but the ones generally in the know of the industry.

Quote:

We'll know more once Valve reveals more to us... but I think their move into the console market probably has more to do with their own blacklash against Microsoft and Windows 8 more than them trying to conquer the console market.

I agree with this. I think this really is the most decent reason why Valve hasn't formally announced the Steambox yet - it's too early to hype about, both for consumers and for the manufacturer. It's Steam's way of making sure their consumers, and video games as a whole can tide over whatever Microsoft is going to cook up after Windows 8.

Apologies, I meant niche gamer. As in gamers who are in the know about the industry, know what indie games are, what ports are, and so on. These would invariably be a subset of the hardcore gamers, or to use the more PC term lately, 'core' gamer - not necessarily the ones clocking 12 hours a day into CS or CoD, but the ones generally in the know of the industry.

As a core gamer, why would I want to invest in Ouya, Shield and Steambox when I have the big three consoles and a gaming PC?

I mean, I can see where they're coming from, but as someone who knows about indie games and is in the know about the gaming industry, I ask this same question about SmartTV's... those TV's that connect to the Internet and generally do stuff... like an Apple TV. What's the point when I have a PC? Would a gamer who already has a gaming level PC and has a tonne of games on Steam get Steambox? It's basically just going to be a standardised PC hardware platform in a fancy container and a controller with what will probably end up being a fairly inflated price tag compared to comparable PCs.

If it's for the people in the know, then the people in the know already have what they need to enjoy Steam. So then it has to be for the people not in the know and not generally good at setting up a PC both hardware and software wise... which means the big question is, how is Valve going to approach the marketing for this kind of a system to attract this audience? It may be a backlash against Microsoft and Windows 8, but they're also trying to get Steam games happening on Linux at the same time... so yeah, it's really unclear what they're doing with this, at least to me.

But I probably will stick with the PC, because it is far superior to anything that a console can muster. I already have a PS3, and probably will transition to a PS4 if they have backwards compatibility

It's never been just "the big three" if you look throughout console history there have been more than just three console makers with varying success... just that the big three are... BIG.

The idea is that the Big Three are facing a bout of attacks on their supremacy; not that they are the only consoles there are.
What remains to be seen is whether the new encroachments are successful, or if they'll fall flat.

I think the biggest thing the new consoles have going for them is hardware standardization in combination with an open developmental platform.

Lack of standardization is a major problem for Android developers, and one of the biggest (legitimate) reasons gaming on iOS is bigger than on Android. With hundreds of hardware configurations that your customers could have, optimizing and testing code is difficult. Support is even worse.

Nvidia has been pushing its weight to create standardization using their Tegra GPU's. Tegra's aren't always the fastest/most powerful of their generations of GPU's, but their being a standard has allowed developers to sometimes focus specifically on it when designing their games, achieving greater graphical fidelity than on other System-On-Chip's.

Adding whole-device standardization to the mix (especially input), along with free SDK's and low cost publication would make platforms like the Ouya and Gamestick quite attractive for mobile developers, i'd think.

On the consumer side, i think the low price point of these two platforms will be the greatest factor. It'd allow accessibility for lower economic strata of society that weren't traditionally able to afford games consoles, and I'd say extensive adoption in developing countries could be a plausible possibility too (e.g. in South America, where the gaming industry is growing).

In my opinion however, having multiple platforms with the same premise releasing at the same time is not a good idea. It'll just cause splintering of customer bases, and prevent the movement from getting a foothold in the home console market.
As unlikely as it is, I would hope that Boxer8 and Playjam (and even more unlikely, Nvidia) combine their forces somehow in their attempt to break open the console market.

Personally, what i'm hoping for once the Ouya and Game Stick are released, is a dual-bootable gaming ROM for high end Android phones, based off the aforementioned consoles' OS's - a ROM that does nothing but game, with gaming oriented features, which can then be used as an Ouya or a Game Stick.

The idea is that the Big Three are facing a bout of attacks on their supremacy; not that they are the only consoles there are.
What remains to be seen is whether the new encroachments are successful, or if they'll fall flat.

Yes, and the consoles that I talked about that are now a relics of the past also attacked the top two or three companies for supremacy...

I'll probably end up investing in a Wii U; alot of the Xbox and Playstation games have never really appealed to me that much, and if they do, I can usually get it over Steam. Nintendo consoles and PC are all I need to be happy. The problem is that once I stopped subscribing to Nintendo Power, I actually became less aware of certain Wii games that existed for the less casual and more hard core crowd, although some of this may be due to the more coverage I see to CoD or Halo. This time, I'll make sure to do my research.

"There is no such thing as coincidence, only inevitability" - xxxHoLiC

ahh my bad, I forgot the sig rules were a bit stricter than I'm used to :P

On topic - They're all going to suck because they're going to hold their own games to their console, steambox will not have any of the mass effects thanks to EA's unwarranted hate towards valve, Halo will stick with Xbox for the sake of it being kept alive, and the PlayStation will remain the dominant console. With PC always being better than any of them

Not claiming I understand the market on the macro level but I am taking my most educated guesses. More of an analysis.

Overall, I would say the "invasion" is going both ways.

TL;DR: The consoles, for whatever reason, have decided to go ahead and move onto the NEXT "next-gen". I'm not sure if right now is the best idea as we're all still getting use to the current "next gen" consoles. But it's already in play, ready or not. I think consoles will be unsuccessful at converting hardcore or PC gamers into console dwellers. So they will try to snatch up as many future customers as possible, using enhanced graphics with names familiar to the PC gamer world.

Meanwhile I think Steambox is the only one of the three wildcards that has a decent chance of breaking into the console market. The other two have a very steep fight ahead--frankly it's looking like history is repeating itself as in the late 80's: you may have a superior product at comparable prices but if you're unknown/obscure, good luck. The only difference now is they at least have some stake in other markets too, where I think challengers of the past did not. ALL the wildcards (and AMD processors in an attempt at regaining some lost ground) would be wise to also try to forge an alliance with the mobile market and app devs.

================================================
THE LONG VERSION

It would appear the release of Nintendo's Wii U was the main catalyst of Sony and Microsoft making their moves. Perhaps current economic indicators also might have spooked the triple monopoly into acting. Or maybe they think if they keep it moving, the market won't slow down since people have nevertheless found time and money for gaming despite the current economic hardships. Whatever the deeper reasons, it shall become apparent later on.

Maybe it's just me. I can't really see much point in releasing new consoles *right now* while we're all still sort of digesting this current version of "next gen" consoles (negative connotation not implied). 'Course I don't speak for everyone.
Suppose my enthusiasm for consoles has faded a bit.
>I swore I was a metroid fanboy and was going to buy a Wii...didn't happen.
>I swore I was a hardcore Twisted Metal head and would buy a PS3...didn't happen either.
>Given xbox360 and NDS as gifts and wound up going with it. So I haven't really bought my own way into consoles in some time. Just games.

I suspect the console industry is seeing some need to compete with PC gaming at a certain level. Either preventing loss of current customers, or enticing future customers not to get into PC gaming. They probably realize they'll never get those who are already hardcore PC gamers to switch over. Next best thing is to steer away future customers as much and long as possible. Feel free to disagree.

---------------------

Just my opinion as a side note: Graphics do kind of go to the heart of the issue of modern games being kind of "meh" lately. Games today look pretty but I'm always hearing their substance is lacking somewhat. Personally I have to agree sometimes. Admittedly, I can't really judge that on anything but what I myself play. Or from reviews--many sources of which I cannot be too sure are being objective or honest.

-----------------------

As to newcomers? Not an economist but if there's one thing I've seen, it's harder to become a champ, than it is to hold onto the title w.r.t. establishing oneself in...well, any industry. Making a significant impact where you have 3 colossal opponents is a daunting task, regardless what industry you're talking about.

I am very interested in the overlap between "mobile" and "portable console" and how this might play out.

It seems nVidia is trying to break into the portable console market by making PC gaming mobile...or portable maybe? Interesting concept. Its rival, Radeon, supposedly latching onto one of the new consoles coming out (is nVidia is going to latch onto consoles to hedge its bets as well? I wonder...), they both seem ambitious. Smart idea not having all your irons in one fire, as they are the premiere graphics processor producers. But is that enough? Is nVidia trying to go after the same market as PSP/PSVita and NintendoDS/3DS? Or is it going to go after the mobile and apps market? Or both? It will be interesting to find out. Radeon will probably focus on improving their GPUs in the meantime.
If nVidia is trying to vanguard for PC gaming and getting it into the tier of mobile consoles, it certainly has a very creative way of going about it. I'm not sure, though, if it will succeed at pulling away customers from PSVita or 3DS.

Ouya: appears to be going after both mobile apps AND portable console gamers. I see consoles, namely Sony taking exception, especially since the territory is on Android. Sony has been trying to bring home console gaming to not just portable, but mobile too, much like nVidia is trying with PC gaming. Whoever dominates, I can only see Android being better for it either way. Certainly happier and fatter in their wallets.

Steambox seems the only wildcard that might have a decent chance of breaking into consoles. Home consoles no less. Steam has undeniably gained traction in the gaming community. They'll probably make a good run of it in consoles, if nothing else. Still I think their dedication to PC gamers is their main strength. Gaming started out in consoles afterall, and there is no reason to believe the established console names are going away anytime soon. If developers of well known games also continue to go multiplatform and include steambox in their mix, there just might be a chance yet for it to succeed in consoles. Plus crossing those games with new developer "test recipes", and mobile apps, I see this as being even more attractive not only for its players but for grads who went to school and are fresh into developing. Whereas companies of previously established consoles require going through "channels" and "licensing". Hasn't really been a place for new small timers to try their hand.

The other two, good as they are, are still relatively obscure. I'm seeing a repeat of history. Atari, Neo Geo, TurboGrafiX 16, and several others. Some of which may have even been superior to systems that were household names. Unfortunately, if you don't have a previously established following or are not a family name...it's a steep uphill battle. Unless they have a trick up their sleeves, I'm not certain if they'll make it in consoles--home or portable.
Perhaps in smaller markets like mobile and apps they DO have a chance. I'd say AMD would be wise to focus here in the mobile market.

-------------------

There is a new element in the market I think: the DIY and grassroots developers.
Call me a fool, but I do root for the new guys (whomever they may be) to be some real vanguards. Competition spurs everyone into striving to improve. Also app devs are looking to branch out in any way they can. I also see an intersection here too of console multi-platformers versus apps down the line.

Overall I think it may be a very interesting year, provided there are no significant slowdowns, and the economy doesn't throw any nasty curveballs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by igyman

Still, I do salute the slow but steady rise of games developed for the PC first and then ported to consoles

Hentai games?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miltiades

The rumor about Microsoft having a used games prevention in their next Xbox is about a year old (It's Kotaku, so I don't know ), it'd be naive to think Microsoft hasn't thought of it anyway. It's all rumors at this point, of course, but we do already live in an age of online passes, it's not that big a stretch.

On the refresh of the new consoles, you've got it wrong... it's not early, in fact, it's right on time. Console refreshes happen every few years and this is the time it's expected to happen. The DIFFERENCE is that Sony and Microsoft are waiting a year or two longer than what is usually done before the release of their next-gen console to take over from where their current gen consoles have left off. They're, in fact, not phased at all by the release of Wii U which Nintendo did for their own reasons mostly stemming from the fact that Nintendo had tapped out Wii in terms of its own first and second party software and wanted a new hardware with new gadgets to play with. Nintendo does what Nintendo does mostly for themselves. Sony and Microsoft do what they need to do to compete with each other... they may announce their new consoles at E3 this year, but it's still going to be awhile before they're released.

I don't see the decline of the console industry simply because I know there's a lot of people who know nothing about how to troubleshoot when anything goes wrong on a PC. The stress of trying to figure out all the various big and small things that go wrong with PC gaming (which we all take for granted since, if we're here, we're all most likely used to all of those issues). My nephew, his friends and everyone he knows on his age level on the other hand? They're totally clueless when it comes to that kind of thing. All they REALLY want to do is insert game and start. Which is all a lot of people want to do. They're not concerned about the slight difference in frame-rate, the higher resolution or the anti-aliasing and little tweaks you can do to add performance.

As for console manufacturers trying to reel in the PC gamers? They're not concerned at all, they don't need to try to do anything to attract PC gamers at all because the market they have no is huge and profitable. In fact, they smart thing which they've done is try and go the other direction and attract people who don't generally play the video games that we all play. The so called "casual gamers" and "non-gamers"...

As for graphics... a lot of developers need to realise that trying to create photo-realistic visuals (or as close to that direction as possible) on every game they make is BORING. More games with interesting art styles please.

I don't see the decline of the console industry simply because I know there's a lot of people who know nothing about how to troubleshoot when anything goes wrong on a PC.

Oh I wasn't indicating a decline--I don't see a decline either. I just see a subtle grab, to people 'on the fence' through appealing to what is cheaper in the present. What's easier. It's a small segment but the small things matter over time.

Quote:

As for console manufacturers trying to reel in the PC gamers? They're not concerned at all, they don't need to try to do anything to attract PC gamers at all because the market they have no is huge and profitable.

I do agree their customer base is larger than ever, but I rather take a more catch 22 view. Sure for the most part customers are inert and tend to stick around in the same place "cuz it's easy". It's a long shot admittedly: If the general perception changes, though, so will behavior. That's how challengers pull off upsets.

Quote:

The stress of trying to figure out all the various big and small things that go wrong with PC gaming <*brevity*> All they REALLY want to do is insert game and start. Which is all a lot of people want to do.
--->
In fact, they smart thing which they've done is try and go the other direction and attract people who don't generally play the video games that we all play. The so called "casual gamers" and "non-gamers"...

I hadn't considered how they'd get those customers outside the fray. Good point.

As to the rest, that's generally sort of what I meant about luring away current and future customers from PC, and those "on the fence" so to speak. As I said, they'll never lure away the hardcore PC gamers who took the plunge and are already there.

I was more getting at the persistence angle upon those already in the fray: Sure it's a huge customer base, but it didn't just get that way overnight. As the youngest customers get older, tastes change. But people are hesitant if not resistant to change too. Hence the general analogy "it's easier to remain the champ than to become one" regarding the industry.

Get it ingrained that easier IS cheaper which is good, and the NOW is best. People will stick around because it's so heavily in their subconscious. As the youngest get older, the companies stay persistent. Since people are resistant to change even in the "margin", odds favor incumbency.

The incumbents (consoles) would have to do whatever they can to ensure their main customers stick around, reeling them in from a young age away from other forms or mediums of entertainment (*NOT* just PC gaming I might add!). So far it has worked pretty well I think. They just don't have to work as hard *now* at retention as newcomers do at making a dent.

Still, it's about perception. I wouldn't underestimate it, and it doesn't look like consoles do either. To their credit.

I don't think consumers are being reeled in and held by one or two specific sources of media and then miss out on other sources or feel that can have this but not that. The trend, now more than ever, seems to be that people consume media from a number of different sources and as they grow older they end up expanding to an even larger source pool... mostly because as people get older they become financially independent and can buy the media for themselves.

Everyone is going to spend money (piracy aside) on all of these different sources and the big thing that all of these different sources have to worry about isn't about capturing an individual so that they feel that they should only buy their specific product and ONLY their specific product, it's more along the lines of capturing their attention during specific moments... because throughout the year, that same person will end up spending money on console games AND PC games AND movies AND other things. So the key is to make maximum profit from the sale that they do get from that consumer who is consuming media from those multiple sources. This doesn't mean they'll buy less console games or less PC games in favour of a different source, it'll just mean that they'll buy MORE media overall.

The real challenge console manufacturers face are the developers themselves and who they choose to support based on various factors. We've seen this play out before with Nintendo and Sony as I mentioned before and also what happened with EA and the Dreamcast... As Steve Ballmer likes to say "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS..." which is why Sony is the power it is today and why Microsoft was able to become its own power. Sony was able to grab the developers that Nintendo alienated and Microsoft threw money at various developers and bought out others.

This is also very important when we talk about exclusive games since exclusives can become system sellers. Take Monster Hunter in Japan, Sony had it but then lost it to Nintendo and boy has it hurt Sony in Japan. Back in the day both Nintendo and Sega battled each other for third party exclusives and better versions of multi-platform games on their systems, and that trend continues with Sony and Microsoft today.

In terms of these new challengers appearing, the question that I've asked in this thread in previous posts is very relevant because I think it's what most people will be asking themselves. What does games does this system have that my current console and/or PC doesn't have? Why should I get this system if I already have stuff that can play video games right now?

I don't think the answer is "because you can get cheaper games on this new system" since scores of people around the world seem to be perfectly happy paying a premium for their games.

So yeah, I think we're looking at this from the wrong direction. Doesn't matter what the consumers are doing, doesn't matter what the console manufacturers are doing, it's about what the developers are doing.

But, on a serious note, I'm thinking of games like The Witcher 2, or even Battlefield 3, which (whatever you may think of them as wholes) are made on the PC for the PC and then ported to consoles, providing the best version on each platform. I'd even put Dishonored in this bunch based on how it plays on the PC, but at the very least it goes on the list of well-ported console games that came out in the last couple of years alone. Among them are The Darkness II, KoA Reckoning, Alan Wake (including American Nightmare), Sleeping Dogs (not counting the stupid decision to hard-code the arrow keys to certain commands, thus making them unmappable to anything else) and even the rather disappointing Assassin's Creed 3. So yeah, I definitely see an effort to increase the quality of PC games either by developing "for the PC first", or by doing a better job at porting.

On another note, I'm seeing comments that Ouya, Steambox and other newcomers aren't likely to achieve much against giants like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo, but I'd like to remind you all that Sega used to be among the giants once and Microsoft used to be the newcomer with the first Xbox. Bottom line, I wouldn't count the newcomers out so easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynk Former

So yeah, I think we're looking at this from the wrong direction. Doesn't matter what the consumers are doing, doesn't matter what the console manufacturers are doing, it's about what the developers are doing.

I definitely agree, but it's a shame many dev teams don't seam to realize the fact that without their games the consoles are nothing. Dev teams nowadays actually pay the console manufacturers "for the privilege of making a game for their console"! Doesn't make much sense, does it?

On another note, I'm seeing comments that Ouya, Steambox and other newcomers aren't likely to achieve much against giants like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo, but I'd like to remind you all that Sega used to be among the giants once and Microsoft used to be the newcomer with the first Xbox. Bottom line, I wouldn't count the newcomers out so easily.

The problem is that Sega existed in market that's only a fraction of the size of today's. Remember that both Sega and Nintendo were and are very small companies and the games they made were very cheap compared to how things are done now. Sega couldn't compete when things started to change, Nintendo could survive because Hiroshi Yamauchi is one hard edged bastard who knows how to run a business and made sure Nintendo never ran at a loss with anything they did.

Microsoft, as I mentioned many times before, bought their way in. They threw money at every developer they could and bought out others. The Xbox, the first one, was a financial disaster for them but they didn't care because their plan was to SPEND BIG, SPEND HUGE and then benefit from it later. Why? Because it's Microsoft, they can do that, they didn't stop at anything until they got what they wanted because in the market they introduced themselves too, the price of making games was going up and the developers they were trying to attract were very set in their ways.

It's even more so now. The industry, in many ways, is a lot more expensive and harder to break into and Ouya, Nvidia and Valve need to basically pull a bigger Microsoft than Microsoft did to get in. I believe Valve can do it without having to resort to such extremes, as for Nvidia and Ouya? Sorry, they don't have my vote of confidence. Of course Nvidia is fighting on a different front one that I can't see being a very good front to fight on considering how incidental and "on the train to work" a lot of android gaming is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by igyman

I definitely agree, but it's a shame many dev teams don't seam to realize the fact that without their games the consoles are nothing. Dev teams nowadays actually pay the console manufacturers "for the privilege of making a game for their console"! Doesn't make much sense, does it?

A lot of devs do realise this fact... in addition, there are a lot of developers who only want to have their main focus as consoles because that's what their company started off with. That said, out of the three console manufacturers, if there were to be this huge developer revolt that drives them all to PC, the only survivor would be Nintendo since they can pretty much survive with their own games on their own system.

As for the fees developers pay to console manufacturers, they do make sense because a company spent quite a lot of their budget and resources developing, releasing and marketing their console and have set in an array of specific features and an infrastructure built around those features.

You gotta spend money to make money and that small fee allows developers to sell, potentially, millions of copies of their games. Do you think Activision is really concerned about these fees when they're thinking about releasing the next Call of Duty on these systems? No, not at all.

That said... things have changed with this generation because they've also adopted the use of digital downloads as a method of distributing games instead of physical media. This, of course allows for the sale of games for more profit but less cost for some developers, and for indie developers, a reduced fee that is a lot more reasonable.

THEN you have to take into account all of the deals that go on with developers and console manufacturers. Remember, I said in my previous post that console exclusives are EXTREMELY important. How are these deals struck? With lots of money of course... lots and lots of money. Make your game exclusive for my console and I'll waive all the fees and thrown money at your face. Done deal.

I don't think consumers are being reeled in and held by one or two specific sources of media and then miss out on other sources or feel that can have this but not that.

Hmm. Not one or two specific sources so much as...

Quote:

So yeah, I think we're looking at this from the wrong direction. Doesn't matter what the consumers are doing, doesn't matter what the console manufacturers are doing, it's about what the developers are doing.

THERE! Yes. I completely agree with this, it's been the major factor.

You know what? Where I said consoles before I probably shoulda said developers... Argh. Now I just sound wrong headed. Thanks for bearing with me though.

Quote:

it'll just mean that they'll buy MORE media overall.

True. This puts it into perspective and makes sense actually.

Quote:

The real challenge console manufacturers face are the developers themselves and who they choose to support based on various factors. We've seen this play out before with Nintendo and Sony as I mentioned before and also what happened with EA and the Dreamcast...

Hey, I remember that. Yeah, there was this big discussion about whose roping in the most game producers. A huge debate everywhere on whether Sega Dreamcast, Sony Playstation, or Nintendo 64 would "win out" the "console war". I specifically remember being irked Megaman 8 and Megaman X4 were on PlayStation while I'd been a diehard N64 player.

Ah, we have proof again: Developers.

It was the late 90's and I had been curious, too, about twisted metal. So I got it. Then wound up with TM2 and TM3 in short order. Then learned about Duke Nukem and some others. By the time '02 rolled around I was an MvC fiend.

My interest in Nintendo just sort of...faded. Perfect Dark and a few other games were in my stash but that was it. I drifted because Metroid was getting no attention whatsoever and Wario...don't get me wrong, he was badass, but I just kinda didn't care for the more cartoony look after Warioland 3.

Quote:

As Steve Ballmer likes to say "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS..." which is why Sony is the power it is today and why Microsoft was able to become its own power. Sony was able to grab the developers that Nintendo alienated and Microsoft threw money at various developers and bought out others.

True. My own vidya history would support that.

I predict SteamBox might have a good run IF it can sweet talk the well established devs. Small time devs might also stand to springboard from obscurity, rare as that is.

Quote:

This is also very important when we talk about exclusive games since exclusives can become system sellers. Take Monster Hunter in Japan, Sony had it but then lost it to Nintendo and boy has it hurt Sony in Japan.

You're like, one of maybe 3 people I communicate with who know that game. A friend/bro IRL was raving about it on PSP and has been trying to get me into it. Nobody else had even heard of it.

Quote:

Back in the day both Nintendo and Sega battled each other for third party exclusives and better versions of multi-platform games on their systems, and that trend continues with Sony and Microsoft today.

Yep. Never thought I'd see Sonic and Mario in the same game. Low and behold, it happened.

Quote:

In terms of these new challengers appearing, the question that I've asked in this thread in previous posts is very relevant because I think it's what most people will be asking themselves. What does games does this system have that my current console and/or PC doesn't have? Why should I get this system if I already have stuff that can play video games right now?

Yes.

Quote:

I don't think the answer is "because you can get cheaper games on this new system" since scores of people around the world seem to be perfectly happy paying a premium for their games.

Yeah. Not solely the answer anyway. One of many. Perhaps I was over generalizing.
The idea I was getting across was speaking to customer attraction, in reply to where you'd more or less said most people just don't want to deal with the hassle of custom computer rigs, they really just want to plug in/insert game, and play. But yes. Come to think of it, the devs are the ones attracting (for lack of a better term) the customers and keeping them. Definitely a good point.

And I suppose I was also thinking of...something I'd read of cognitive science regarding exploits of human brains. But no matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by igyman

Where!?

...jlist maybe? They're sim style games for the most part.

Quote:

But, on a serious note, I'm thinking of games like The Witcher 2, or even Battlefield 3, which (whatever you may think of them as wholes) are made on the PC for the PC and then ported to consoles, providing the best version on each platform. I'd even put Dishonored in this bunch based on how it plays on the PC, but at the very least it goes on the list of well-ported console games that came out in the last couple of years alone. Among them are The Darkness II, KoA Reckoning, Alan Wake (including American Nightmare), Sleeping Dogs (not counting the stupid decision to hard-code the arrow keys to certain commands, thus making them unmappable to anything else) and even the rather disappointing Assassin's Creed 3.

Most those names...just sort of roll over me. Sorry.

I never got into A.C. Not yet anyway. The only reason I'm considering AC3 is...well, it comes close to my heritage. Sorry to hear it isn't the best, though sequels and 3rd installments rarely match the original, let alone beat it.

Quote:

So yeah, I definitely see an effort to increase the quality of PC games either by developing "for the PC first", or by doing a better job at porting.

On another note, I'm seeing comments that Ouya, Steambox and other newcomers aren't likely to achieve much against giants like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo, but I'd like to remind you all that Sega used to be among the giants once and Microsoft used to be the newcomer with the first Xbox. Bottom line, I wouldn't count the newcomers out so easily.

Well, as Lynk said, it matters who can get DEVs into their hat. I'm inclined to agree because my own history of vidya reflects this.
Steambox stands a good chance along those lines. In fact I'm pretty sure that's the only real way it stands a chance.

I only see the other two as...peripherals, albeit good ones. Here's to hoping I am proved wrong.

Quote:

I definitely agree, but it's a shame many dev teams don't seam to realize the fact that without their games the consoles are nothing. Dev teams nowadays actually pay the console manufacturers "for the privilege of making a game for their console"! Doesn't make much sense, does it?

"Tail wagging the dog", if you'll excuse the analogy. Many devs simply don't realize the power they wield.

We'll murder them all, amid laughter and merriment...except for the few we take home to experiment!

Also, I'm impressed by just how much respect Valve has for the consumers. Both their current actions and broader objectives are geared for benefiting gamers and gaming as a whole. This is why they're doing so damn well.

Imagine the innovation/progress that would be had if all the major players in the games industry had the attitude these guys have.